Bastien, Paul Anthony v Langton, J

1,: I - *

IN THE FEDEBAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

)

',I

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT	REGISTRY	)	No. 18 of 1985	..
INDUSTRIAL DIVISION	)	l:;
I .:
!
I

IN THE MATTER of

the

I *

Conciliation and Arbitration

Act 1904-1980

BFITWEEN:

1 :

i .

I :

PAUL ANTHONY BASTIEN

Applicant

8 ,

I '

AM):

F -

CORAM:

Evatt J

W: 31

October

1986

PLACE :

Sydney

MINUTE OF ORDER

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The respondents and each of them perform and observe the

2 .

Rules of the Amalgamated Metal Workers' Union as treating the Returning Officer's declaration of Mr McCarthy, the 26th named respondent, as elected to the position of New South

Wales State Organiser, Division 1 as being null and void and

take no further steps in pursuance

of that declaration.

The matter stand adjourned to

a date to be fixed for

directions as to the election to fill the said position

New South Wales State Organiser, Division	1 within the
Amalgamated Metal Workers' Union.

Note: Settlement and entry

of orders is dealt with

in Order 36 of

I	the Federal Court Rules.

: I

IN THE FEDERAL COURT

OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	1	No. 18 of 1985
INDUSTRIAL DIVISION

IN THE MATTER of the

Conciliation and Arbitration

Act 1904-1985

:	-	B
PAUL ANTHONY BASTIEN

Appllcant

AND:

Respondents

CORAM:

m a t t J.

DATE:

31 October 1986

PLACE: Sydney

REASONS FOR JUM;MENT

By rule to shol a c<

ause dated 25 September 1985 th applic ant, Pau

2 .

Anthony Bastien, a member of the Amalgamated Metal Workers'

Union,

("the

organization"),

an organization

employees

registered under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act ("the Act")

sought orders pursuant to

5.141 of the Act against several

personal respondents. The first named respondent is

a member of

the organisation and at all relevant times held the position of

the New South Wales Returning Officer for the said organization,

whilst the remaining respondents constitute the New South Wales

Council.

The orders sought are:

1. That

the

respondents

and

each

then

perform

and

observe the Rules of the organization by treating the

Returning

Officer's

declaration

McCarthy

elected to the position of State Organizer Division

1 as

being null and void and take no further steps in

pursuance of that declaration.

2 .

That the firstnamed Respondent perform and

observe rule

PART "E" 2 ( c) (sic) of the organization by accepting P. Bastien's nomination for the abovementioned position in accordance with the said rule.

3 . That the firstnamed Respondent perform and observe the Rules of the organization by arranging for the conduct

aballot

for

the

abovementioned

position

accordance

with

rule

PART "E" 7 (sic) of

the

organization.

1 3

i	3 .
I
l

The so-called rules

PART

"E" 2(c) and

PART "E" 7 are in fact

divisions or paragraphs of certified rule

2 of the organization.

Briefly, the circumstances leading up to the application for the rule to show cause are as follows. The incumbent of the office

of New South Wales State Organizer Division

1 was due to retire

in June 1985 in accordance with the rules of the organization. The State Council had appointed that incumbent to carry out the

duties of the office for

a short period of time thereafter in

order that he might complete certain negotiations with various

employers with which he was familiar. At the date of such

appointment, it was anticipated that he would have completed

! -

those negotiations by approximately

12 July 1985.

Nominations were called by the Returning Officer, Mr Langton, the first named respondent, for the filling of the said office some

time in June 1985, the last date for the lodging	of nominations
being 5 July 1985.

At the close of nominations the Returning Officer had received

two nominations only, that of the applicant, Mr Bastien, and that

of Mr McCarthy, the 26th named respondent. Before a ballot was

set in train Mr McCarthy challenged Mr Bastien's nomination on

the basis that Mr Bastien's qualifications did not comply with

rule 2 , PART "E", 2(c). Relevant parts of that sub-rule reads:

4. l .'

RULE 2

ELECTIONS AND VOTING

PART "E"

STATE ORGANISERS	I .
i '

1. The State Returning Officer shall, once each four years, conduct an election for each office of State Organizer.

2. A member of a branch in the State may be nominated as

candidate under the Rule if:

(a)

he has been

a member of the Union, for

a continuous

period of not less than two years immediately

preceding the closing date for lodging nominations

and durinq the period

of twelve months immediatelv

precedinq the closing date for lodging nominations,

was not unfinancial for	a period longer than three	.
months; (Emphasis added)

(b) ....

(c)

he was, for a period of not less than twelve months

immediately before the

closing date for lodging

nominations:

(Emphasis added)

(i) employed in the State as

an employee in a

trade or calling or branch thereof in or in

connection

with

w ich

t e

Union

registered;

(ii) unemployed

the

State

account

illness, incapacity or inability to obtain

employment; or

(iii)

engaged

in a full-time office of the Union

after having been elected or temporarily

appointed thereto.

As a result of Mr McCarthy's objection to Mr Bastien's nomination

the Returning Officer wrote to Mr Bastien on

23 July

1985 as

follows :

l..

"Bro. McCarthy and yourself are the

only two candidates and

he has	challenged your eligibility under Rule	2, sub-clause
2(c).

l . I '

Your eligibility being raised I have sought legal advice and ask that you give me a written submission in answer to the

challenge.

The challenge and your submissions will be put to

Counsel before

I make a decision.

The matter is urgent and

I have informed Bro. McCarthy what

am doing

so that he is aware of the facts."

, _

_ .

Mr Bastien supplied the information sought

in a letter

to the

Returning Officer dated

7 August 1985.

Thereafter the Returning Officer rejected the nomination of the applicant and by letter dated 16 August 1985 wrote to the State

Secretary purportedly pursuant to rule	2,	sub-rule	6(a)	as
follows :

"Having sought legal advice relative to the election of

New

South Wales State Organiser Division

1 and having considered

the advice given by Counsel	I	have ruled Brother Bastien
ineligible.

It is my duty therefore to declare Brother

R McCarthy elected

to the position of New South Wales State Oganiser, Division

. .

Thereafter on or about 26 August 1985

the applicant appealed to

the State Council against the decision

of the State Returning

Officer in accordance with rule

35, which makes provisions for

internal complaints and appeals. The notice	of	appeal set out
the grounds of appeal.

This notice of appeal together with the letter from the Returning

Officer dated 16 August were mentioned before the State Council

at its meeting

of 28 August. The Council resolved that both

6 .

matters be stood over for

consideration by it

at its September

meeting due to be held on

27 September.

17 September

1985, Mr

McCarthy wrote to the State Council

(copied to Mr Bastien) claiming that the purported appeal under rule 35 was improper as rule 35, on its proper construction, did not permit appeals from decisions of the Returning Officer to the

State Council.

The letter then sought an undertaking from the

State Secretary that the Council would not proceed with any purported appeal. Failing such undertaking Mr McCarthy indicated that he intended to "commence proceedings in a proper court to

ensure that

my rights are protected".

such undertaking was

given by the State Secretary to

Mr McCarthy.

On 27 September State Council resolved that neither the appeal nor the Returning Officer's letter

16 August be dealt with

pending legal advice.

As stated above, the applicant was granted the rule to show cause

herein on

2 October 1985.

As it was apparent from the applicant's points of

claim that a

challenge may be made to

the validity of

rule 2 PART

"E" 2(c)

under

s.l4O(l)(c)

the

Act,

the

Court

directed

that

the

Amalgamated Metal Workers' Union (the organisation)

be added as a

respondent to the proceedings.

, 3

On 7 November

1985 the applicant sought interim orders under

s.141(2) of the Act restraining the respondents and any of them

until further order from giving effect to the Returning Officer's

said letter of

16 August 1985 to the State Secretary of the State

Council. At that hearing, Mr Moore of Counsel appeared for the The Court after hearing evidence granted the interim orders as asked and after giving certain directions stood the matter over for hearing.

applicant; Mr Rothman of Counsel appeared for all respondents,

including the organisation, other than the 26th named respondent,

When the matter came of for hearing the appearances were

above. In addition to the affidavit evidence filed, evidence was

given viva voce by

Bastien;

by a

Mr Bruce McLeod; by Mr

McCarthy, and by a Mr Adrian Hart, another State Organiser. The latter two witnesses were called by Mr Wright.

Mr McLeod had formerly been the

N w South Wales Branch Secretary

of the Federated Shipwrights and Ship Contractors Association of

Australia, an organisation registered under the Act before its amalgamation with the organisation. Mr McLeod was himself

qualified

shipwright.

gave

evidence

relation

to the

history of the shipwright industry in Sydney over

period of

many years up until the present time and the method of pick-up

employers of casual shipwrights 'at Sydney and the workings of a

l .

8 .

roster system presently run

by the organisation for that purpose

and the keeping by

hlm of a roster book.

The evidence,

which

accepted, shows that the shipwright

industry, especially casual labour shipwrights on the waterfront

at Sydney, has over recent years gradually diminished

so that the

total number

shipwrights who are presently members

of the

organisation is in the order of a mere

470 men, of whom but some

30 to 50 regularly roster for casual work.

The practice at relevant times was for employers to ring the organisation when seeking casual Shipwrights. Such calls were as

a matter of practice dealt with

by Mr McLeod who would allocate

work to members from the roster.

The evidence discloses that casual shipwrights are taken up for

varying periods by various employers.

stated, the number of

such shipwrights doing casual work is a relatively small number.

From time to time such casual workers might decide to take

holidays or a break from work. There is no set pattern for this

and the duration of such breaks often depended upon the wages

earned during a particular spell of engagement but the practice

had grown up for the casual shipwrights when intending to take

such "leave" to inform

Mr McLeod accordingly.

It should be noted, and the Court takes notice

of the fact, that

the organisation itself is what one might call a "hybrid union"

1 . l

made up of a number of other former registered organisations

which have come together over the years by means of amalgamation

with	the former Amalgamated Engineering Union (the A.E.U.) to

form the present Amalgamated Metal Workers' Union. Such former

organisations include the Boilermakers' Society, the Sheetmetal

Workers'

and

the

Shipwrights'

Federation,

which

latter

organisation amalgamated with the organisation in or about

1976.

Evidence in respect of Mr Bastien which is accepted, shows that

he has been a member of the organisation since 27 January 1977;	I .
that thereafter he worked either as a casual shipwright; or	r .

engaged in a full-time office within the organisation having been

appointed from time to time to such office for varying periods

or, during the relevant period, was on "leave" for a period of

some five months on

a overseas trip. Mr Bastien claims that

during any relevant period when he made himself available for

work as a casual shipwright any period during which

he was not

picked-up he

nevertheless was still "employed" as

casual

shipwright within the meaning

of paragraph (c) (i) of rule 2 PART

"E" 2.

This claim is discussed later herein.

Regarding the overseas trip which occurred between the months

October 1984

and March 1985,

Mr Bastien accompanied his father

(who was gravely ill) on

flight to Europe. His father was

anxious

visit

certain

parts

Europe

and

Bastien

accompanied him during this part of the trip. After some two

months, his father boarded

ship to return to Australia. Being

10.

satisfied that his father would receive proper medical attention

on the sea voyage home, the applicant decided to stay on in

England and Europe. Overall, the applicant was absent from

Australia for about five months, being on his

own

for the last

I .

three.

Prior to setting out

on this trip,

Mr Bastien spoke to Mr McLeod,

' .

as the custodian of the roster book, seeking from Mr McLeod leave

of absence from the roster

for the purpose of going overseas for

some months. It

is accepted that such leave of absence

was

granted to the applicant by Mr McLeod.

Accordingly, it is accepted that during the whole of the twelve months immediately before the close of nominations (ie from July

1984 to

5 July 1985) Mr Bastien either worked

as a

casual

shipwright; was employed in

a full-time position within the

organisation or was overseas from late 1984 through to early	1985
for some five months.

It was this period of five months which the Returning officer

ruled prevented Mr Bastien from qualifying

as a candidate for the

office of

a State Organiser. In this regard, the applicant's

first submission was that the Court was entitled to conclude that Mr Bastien was during this period of five months on "leave"; that on its proper construction, the expression "employed" referred to

in sub-rule

(c)

( i) of

PART "E" 2 included any "leave" taken

whilst so employed and that the said period of five months should

I -

11.

be treated as such leave

as to be included when assessing any

period of employment prior to the close of nominations.

In support of this argument Mr Moore pointed out that if

a person

r: r .

who was employed in the sense of being a party to a subsisting	i' .:
contract of employment in the State of New South Wales and took a period of extended leave, say for three months, then there would

be no argument that such

a person would be employed in the State

as an employee in the trade

or calling during such leave. It was

submitted that where a person such as Mr Bastien was engaged on a

casual basis working on and from a roster then any period that

that person takes

off

on "leave" from the roster should be

treated as employment.

The reasoning for this submission, as the

Court understands it, is that to be "employed" in the State as

"employee" in paragraph

2 PART

"E", does not

necessarily mean that the employee has to be employed at all	' 7
..

times under a subsisting contract

of employment. That such was

necessarily so

was the apparent view of the Returning Officer.

Such a construction, it

was

submitted, is far too narrow for

I ,

employees working in the trade of a shipwright as

a casual worker

' .

on and from the roster run by the organisation. It was argued

that in the circumstances of this particular case a more liberal

generous

interpretation

the

rule

should

prevail.

Accordingly

was

submitted

that

order

for

a casual

shipwright to fall within the category of being "employed", all

I _.

that was necessary was that

he be ready, willing and able to work

in the trade. This,

so it was said, would be demonstrated by

7 '

1 12.

placing his name on the roster. Here, it is accepted in respect of the 12 month period between July 1984 and July 1985 that apart

from the tine when

he was on "leave"

or working as an official in

the organisation, Mr Bastien was at all tines ready, willing and

able to be picked-up from the roster in order that	e carry out
casual shipwright work.

The Court is well aware of the nature of "casual employment" that

!,;

I	has prevailed in the maritime industry in Sydney for decades.	l!
' .
l

One has

only to look at the superseded Stevedoring Industry Act

1973 to ascertain that

person who was registered as

a waterside

I	worker was deemed to be employed in the industry for the purposes

of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act (see

s.42

Stevedoring

Industry Act 1973).

This highlights the position that one could

be an "employee" in the maritime industry without a subsisting contract of employment by

merely being registered for work. The

evidence discloses that,

far

work in the shipwright

industry is concerned, this practice still prevails in respect of

casual shipwrights at Sydney.

Reference was also made to Bielski v

Oliver & Ors (1958) 1 F'LR

258 where the Court had to consider what the words "engaged in

manual labour" in

a particular eligibility rule meant. At page

262, Spicer

C.J. and Morgan J. said,

The word "engaged" in rule

6 does not, we think, require that

a person should be in actual employment in the calling

t the

tine of his application if his calling or occupation can be

said to be within the specified classes. However, this nay

' .

13.

be, the phrase "engaged in manual or mental labour in or in

connection with any of the following industries or callings"

which appears at the beginning of rule

6, cannot in our

opinion cover a person who had been engaged about nine months

earlier in one of the prescribed industries or callings, but

who has abandoned the

calling, and has become engaged in

quite another industry

or calling not specified in the rule.

Further, it is clear that the Act itself

has a

number of

provisions which clearly provide for

a generous interpretation of

the word "employee" and "employment". Compare s.4 (definition of

"employee") S. 132(4) and 5.144

( 3 ) .

I am of the view that the submissions of the applicant in this regard should be upheld. Here, the applicant had been a member

of the organisation for some eight years during which time

he has

worked

as a

casual shipwright working on and from the roster

book. This meant that there were periods of varying lengths when

he offered for work but was not picked-up. Nevertheless, in my

view, he was then "employed" as an "employee" within the meaning

of these words in rule 2 (c)(i).

In addition, throughout these

years, Mr Bastien had been appointed to

a full-time office within

+ I m e

the organisation at

various,

- for varying periods. From time

to time he had taken

l ave of absence from the roster.

Any leave taken by such

a casual shipwright need not of course be

taken within the State.

The question for determination in my

view is simply whether the person concerned is taking

a period

off

work

with

the

clear

intention

returning

casual

shipwright work by placing his name back on the roster on his

return. In Mr Bastien's case this was clearly the position when

P-

: .

14.

he	went overseas. Accordingly, in my view, Mr Bastien did

qualify for nomination to the position of State Organiser at the

I ,'

relevant

time

and

his

subject

nomination

should

have

been

accepted.

Further, on the assumption that the Court was against him as to

his first submission, Mr Moore secondly submitted that the period

of 12 months referred to in paragraph (c) of rule

2 PART "E" 2

need not be

a continuous period of 12 months. It was submitted

that when

one looks

at the whole of rule 2 one sees that the

draftsman,

when

was intended

that a period

should

continuous, specifically said so, or uses the words "the period

of" as In "the period of

12 months immediately preceding" as in

rule 2(a).

This expression has to be contrasted with

"a period

of" used in rule 2(c) where the draftsman has used the words

period of not less than

12 months immediately before".

It is noted that the present qualifications set out

in PART

"E" 2

(a) and (c) are, so far as is relevant, in identical terms

to the

various qualifications required by members when nominating as

candidates for all official offices within the ogranization (see

l '

rule 2 PART "A" - National	Officers,	including	National	L
! .

President, National Secretary, Assistant National Secretaries,

and National Organisers; PART "B" - State Officers; PART "C" -

I	Regional Delegates to National Conference; and PART "D" - Zone Representatives to State Conference).

1.J.

15.

Rule books covering earlier periods from

1959 were tendered to

show the history of the particular rule. These were accepted

without

objection

howing

the

relevant

rules

the

organisation as	certified at the particular periods referred to
therein.

The present rule 2 PART "E" 2(c) set out earlier herein is to be

compared with the rule as it stood in

1959.

Then, the rule

dealing

with

the

qualifications

for

office

Divisional

Organiser was rule

2, sub-rule

12(f) which provided that those

qualifications were "the same as those applied to the President,

except that candidates must be members of

a Branch and worked at

the trade for the whole of the 12 months as

defined in (a)"...

Sub-rule 12(a) made provision for qualifications for President.

That sub-rule provided (inter alia) that "all candidates for

President must, durinq the whole of the

months immediately

prior to the date of nomination have either been working"

...

(with certain provisos). The 1959

rules which formed the basis

for the present certified rules were the former

A.E.U.

rules

before the amalgamation with other Unions discussed earlier

herein.

Again,

the

rules

force

as at

May

1979

show

that

the

qualifications and conditions for nominating for the office of

State Organiser were the same as applied to the office of five years continuous membership, be members of (the particular)

16.

Branch and have worked at

the trade for the whole precedinq

months in the State concerned" (Rule

2, sub-rule 6(f)).

The September 1983 Rule book shows that the relevant rules were

then the same

those agreed by the parties to be the rules

relevant to the subject election and which have been set out

earlier herein.

It is clear that between 1959 and 1979 the words "the whole" in

the expression "during the whole

of the 12 months" were dropped

and the expression "have worked at the trade for the whole

preceding 12 months

the

State

concerned"

substituted.

Further, it is clear that between

1979 and

1983 the rule was

further amended

so as to drop the requirement of

a continuous or

whole period of

12 months and substituting the words

"a period of

not less than

12 months". Such amendment

in my view lends

assistance in determining the proper construction to be placed on

the whole of the rule in its present form. In the present

sub-rule 2(a) the draftsman uses the expression "has been a

member ...

for a continuous period", whereas in paragraph 2(c)

the draftsman uses the verb "was" in the phrase "he was for a period of not less than 12 months". Again, paragraph 2(a) talks of "the period of 12 months" whilst paragraph 2(c) talks of "a

period of not less than

months". These changes, it was

argued, supported the argument that paragraph

2(c) in its present

form did not require that the period referred to was necessarily

a continuous period of not less than 12 months.

17.

Mr Wright

submitted

that

Moore

was

correct

his

submissions in this regard then the words "immediately before" in

paragraph 2(c) had no work to

do.

In reply Mr Moore submitted

these

words

certainly

had

work

do, namely

candidate

nominating

for

State

Organiser

had

show

that

either

immediately before the date of the close of nominations, that is

for some reasonable time before and up to that date,

he had been

working or engaged in

a trade or calling or branch thereof in or

in connection with

which the Union is registered or alternatively

that he was then entitled to one or both of the qualifications

set out in (ii) or (iii)

of paragraph (c).

What is meant by a

reasonable period in this regard was,	so	it was argued,	a
question of fact.

Accordingly Mr Moore submitted that it was not necessary for such

a candidate to show that he was employed or engaged in such

trade continuously for the whole of the

months immediately

before the close of nominations. If he was able to show that

during a period totalling 12 months back from the close of

nominations he

was either engaged in such

a trade, andfor was

entitled

the benefit of the qualifications in paragraph

(c)(ii) andfor (c)(iii) then he should not be disqualified if in

I .

ascertaining such a period of

12 months it was necessary to

I .

include periods outside the period of

12 months immediately

before the close of nominations. Further,

it was argued, in

determining whether a

member was "employed as an

employee" in

1 . .

1 18.

such a trade, consideration should be given to whether the member

was "engaged" in the particular trade or	calling in the sense
used in Bielski's case (supra).

Mr Rothman, who appeared for the organisati

on itself and all the

personal

respondents

other

than

the

26th

named

respondent,

supported the submissions of Mr Moore.

On the other hand, Mr Wright submitted that the expression in

paragraph (c). "for a period

not

less

than

12 months

immediately before" is clear and unambiguous and means exactly

what it says, namely that for the continuous period of or for

the

whole of the

months immediately before the closing date of

nominations a

candidate for State Organiser necessarily had to

fall within the qualifications set out

(c)(i) and/or be

entitled to the qualifications referred to in (ii) or (iii) of

that paragraph. Additionally, Mr Wright submitted that the words

"employed" and "employee" appearing in paragraph

( c)

( i) should

not be read down

i any way.

Again, I am of the view that Mr Moore's submissions

as to the

proper construction of rule 2(c) should in all the circumstances

of this case be accepted. It is clear on the evidence that if

the period of five months between October

1984 and March 1985 is

not to be included in calculating a period of not less than

months before July

1985 then Mr Bastien's earlier work history is

that

he was in fact engaged

in a

full-time office within the

19.

organisation from

14 November 1983 through to September 1984 when

he sought casual shipwright work from the Sydney roster for some

little time before leaving to go overseas with his father.

that during a period totalling well

in excess of 12 months back

from July 1985 and commencing in November 1983 he fell within the

required qualifications referred to in paragraphs 2(c)(i) and

(c)(iii) as construed above.

Accordingly, in

my view it is clear that Mr Bastien satisfied the

qualifications set out in the rule as

construed and his

nomination as

a candidate for State Organiser should, if this had

been the necessary test, have been accepted. In saying this it is not to be taken that the Court reflects upon the Returning

Officer's conduct in any way.

He did everything that he should

have done. It was proper in the circumstances to seek legal

advice as to whether or not the facts as supplied by Mr Bastien

qualified him as

a nominee for the subject office and having

obtained Counsel's opinion he had every right	to act upon it as
he did.

Mr Moore finally submitted that if the Court were against him on

t ,

both his first and

second submissions then the Court should hold

[-.

that	he	subject	rule	was	invalid	as	being	contrary	to	i-
_.

s.l40(1)(c). This

was, so it was argued, on the basis that the

;

j .,

rule, having regard

to the objects of the Act and the purposes of

I -

the	registration	of	the	organisation	under	the	Act,	was	l
.~

oppressive, unreasonable or unjust. Broadly his submission was	: .,
F-:

20.

that if the suggested liberal interpretation of the rule was not

r .

accepted then any casual shipwright who took any leave or

holidays or breaks between taking up any contract of employment

during the whole of the 12 months immediately before nominations

closed would be disqualified from nominating. This would be

discriminatory

against

the

trade

calling

a casual

shipwright and accordingly would be unreasonable or unjust. In

view of the Court's expressed view

as to the proper construction

of the sub-rule I find it unnecessary to express any view as to rebuttal thereof.

Accordingly, in all the circumstances, the Court is of the view

that the applicant Mr Bastien is entitled to an

order that the

respondents and each of them perform and observe the rules of the

organisation in treating the Returning Officer's declaration of

McCarthy

elected to the position of State Organizer

Division 1 as being null and void and that the respondents take

no further steps in pursuance of that declaration. Orders should

be made accordingly.

The Court proposes to adjourn the matter to

a date in the near

future to hear submissions from the parties as to further

directions in respect of the subject election. That date may be

arranged between the parties in consultation with my Associate.

21.

!	I certify that the preceding

+ m 1 1 7

pages are a true copy of

the Reasons for Judgment herein

of his Honour Mr Justice m a t t

Associate

I	Dated: 31-10-86
j
I
I
l
~
!
I
i
i
I
i
I
I
I I
i
I
I

JN THE FEDERAL COURT

OF AUSTRALIA

)

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	1 No. 18 of	1985
INDUSTRIAL DIVISION

IN THE MATTER of the Conclllatlon and Arbitration Act 1904-1980

BETWEEN

PAUL ANTHONY BASTIEN

Applicant

Respondents

CORRIGENDA

Amendment to the Judgment	of the Honourable Mr Justlce Evatt
dated 31 October 1986.

Page 10, Line 14: Omit the word "Union".

Page 13, Llne 21:

Should read "at varlous tlmes for varying

I	periods" instead of "at various and for varying perlods".

J.M. HARRIS

Assoclate to Evatt J.

[1986] FCA 474

31 Oct 1986